Chief Justice Appointment

robboo said:

I think we might need to add a clause that the CJ from prior term is CJ until such time as his replacement is named. That would have prevented this.

Same thing can be said for Censor..we couldnt validate any elections if we had the censor in a runoff correct?

Click to expand...

I don't know if that would stand up under the constitution. Terms are fixed and elected officials must give up their office at the end of the term. Extending a term like this should really have a constitutional amendment to back it up. Should be an easier system that could be adopted. The mechanism for allowing the Secretary of State to assume presidential duties was a great stop gap measure. I think we'd be well served to write up a quick chain of command law that would specifically apply to presidential run-offs. That way we can have an acting president who could handle pressing matters while the election plays out. We'd only need this for presidential run-offs (as distinct from vacancies). I guess this CoC would also work for other run-offs so that important matters could be adressed in the interum in case of any run-oofs.

Good point about the censor! That should really be addressed. What if no one ran for censor? Does our current law book address that vacancy regarding the validation of elections?

What would have prevented this, is someone running for the CJ office.

-- Ravensfire

Very true, ravensfire. I've been gone too long, why does it seem to be that this demogame is dieing, or at the very least weak? Or am I misinterpreting what I see?

Ok here is my argument.

The election for president was a draw so legally we were required to have a run off election. At the time there was no person elected and legally allowed to act as president during this third term. So the duties fell upon the secretary of state to appoint any official that had not been elected. Normally the secretary would wait for the run off election to take effect but in this case she found it necessary to fill the vacancy as was her right.

The secretary of state was then meant to ask for applications then if any applications came within 72 hours she was allowed to appoint a applicant to the position of Chief Justice. Some people have mistakenly thought that the Secretary of state needed to wait the 72 hour time limit but she did not. All code of law section 8 says is that “If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.” Not that she has to wait 72 hours before the appointment takes place.

Now things didn’t exactly go according to the law. The secretary of state requested applications as per the correct procedure, but then in a different thread she nominated myself (which was then 2nd and 3rd by other citizens a former chief justice and a current defense minister.) I accepted the nomination. Although this isn’t exactly the legal procedure it does fulfill the same purpose. Legally she could have requested application, 1 minute later I apply 1 minute after this she could have appointed me. So the purpose of the law was carried out.

The secretary of state legally acting as president requested applications for the vacant position of Chief Justice. I said I would like the job she said I could have it. Just not in that order.

So legally I am the Chief Justice of the nation. If you wish to officially argue any of my points you can do one of the following: Request a Judicial review to see if any of the quoted sections of law do not mean what they say. In this case I will hand the position to a Pro Tempore until the review is over OR issue a citizens complaint against myself of the current secretary of state for acting ultra vires by the secretary appoint me or because I opened a judicial thread.

Or a third option if you accept the appointment as legal you could challenged it with a confirmation poll.

.................................................................................................
Laws that illustarte my points

Code of Laws Section 8 - Office Limits and Vacancies

Section B- Vacancies

Subsection I. A Vacancy occurs when an office is empty due to the office holder resigning, judicial action, impeachment, if no citizen ran for election for that office or when a new office is created.

Subsection II. Triumvirate Vacancies
a. If there is a Vacancy in the Triumvirate, the President shall nominate a citizen to that office. If the Presidency is Vacant, the Secretary of State, or Secretary of War if the Secretary of State is also vacant, shall nominate a citizen to that office. The citizen must accept the nomination prior any further steps.

Subsection V. Judicial appointments
a. The President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.
b. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll.


Article D of Constitution

The candidate with the highest vote total is the winner of an election poll, regardless of whether such vote total is a majority of votes cast or not.
Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes, as many runoff elections shall be held as needed to resolve the election, as further defined by law.

Odd, though not, I would yet say, unconstitutional, for a person to declare themselves to an office and then use that office to retro-actively legalise it.

The one main flaw I can find is that Chieftess never formally declared the Presidency, unless she herself assumed it, and then declared you Chief Justice, who would then retroactively legalise the whole proceess, which seems a tad dubious.

Nobody - I won't request a JR on the matter, because I cannot.

I don't recognize your appointment, and any action that I take to challenge it would necessarily recognize it.

Sorry, CT's action does not follow the law. The section where the SoS takes over the Presidential duties was removed. She does not have the power to appoint you.

-- Ravensfire

Again none of this would have been a problem had not Strider come up with the idea of Co-president and then Chill agree to it. Without that and a normal runoff we would all be waiting for the results instead of trying to figure this out.

This is what caused the problem and it needs to be addressed by JR when a full( and legal) judicial is on the bench.

"Nobody" I believe your appoitment still lacks a citizens poll approval. Also I seconded your nomination when it appeared we would need a ruling. Now after reading the CoL for the 5th of 6th time today I see that SoS did offer you the position in error. I suggest as to not cause any more issues..step down and wait for President Chill to ask for CJ applicants. I am sure you will get highest consideration since you have had the support of 2 of the Tri. I dont think anyone has a problem with you being CJ if proper legal means are followed.

ravensfire said:

Nobody - I won't request a JR on the matter, because I cannot.

I don't recognize your appointment, and any action that I take to challenge it would necessarily recognize it.

Sorry, CT's action does not follow the law. The section where the SoS takes over the Presidential duties was removed. She does not have the power to appoint you.

-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

It wasnt removed it is still in the thread that says THE LAW, if it wasnt edited properly thats not my fault. Also i dont know if anyone noticed that the code of laws is a huge monster of a law and the person who wrote it dosent even hang around any more to explain it properly

robboo said:

"Nobody" I believe your appoitment still lacks a citizens poll approval. Also I seconded your nomination when it appeared we would need a ruling. Now after reading the CoL for the 5th of 6th time today I see that SoS did offer you the position in error. I suggest as to not cause any more issues..step down and wait for President Chill to ask for CJ applicants. I am sure you will get highest consideration since you have had the support of 2 of the Tri. I dont think anyone has a problem with you being CJ if proper legal means are followed.

Click to expand...

Ok i will stand down and wait for the president to ask for applicants although i do think what i wrote above is true. The 72 hours law is not how Donsig interprets it, it is how it is written.But to save argument and people not accepting me as CJ i will wait for the newly elected president to ask for aplications.

ravensfire said:

What would have prevented this, is someone running for the CJ office.

-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

If I had known there would actually be something to do this term I would have run. As soon as Chieftess put out the call I pmmed her expressing my interest in the post. Once the new president is installed I will pm him as well.

@nobody: The only options you give imply we must first accept the legality of your appointment. Please don't take any of this personally. It is not about whether you should be CJ, it is about whether the appointment made by Chieftess was within the law as written. Unfortunately the whole thing is compounded by the fact that the posted CoL is outdated!

You people like confusing me, don't you?

Unfortunately the whole thing is compounded by the fact that the posted CoL is outdated!

Click to expand...

Bah it should be that the posted Col is enforced.

How is anyone meant to understand the law, if it isnt updated and it isnt exactly a simple document its a huge mess of a thing. Plus on top of that we have people who are always the judges who decided what the law is based on what they think it is not on what it currently says.

Cheiftess didn't follow the appiontment exactly but it was fair, She offered the job to the world, i asked, she accepted. all within the legal 72 hours. Not in that order but thats what happened. Why did she apoint me? because i ran for a position in the court and lost so obvious if no one else ran she assumed i was the only person at the time who wanted a judicary job.

Can someone answer me this question......... Why was Cheiftess appiontment illegal? and can someone please post somewhere the current law of our nation so we can know what rules we live with.

Anyone notice how smooth the small demogames run without gigantic unknown code of laws. Atleast the old way was understood.

Not that it matters as i have stood down awaiting the president-elect request for applications.

nobody,

I'm working on an request in Needed Things to get the main sections updated. I don't know why that didn't happen earlier.

However, there have been amendments that did change the law. That someone who would serve as CJ doesn't know the law disturbs me.

-- Ravensfire

Can someone answer me this question......... Why was Cheiftess appiontment illegal? and can someone please post somewhere the current law of our nation so we can know what rules we live with.

Click to expand...

The question is whether it was legal for her to assume the duties of President. If she does have the power of the President, the appointment was legal, imho, since she can select anyone that aplies that doesn't already have an office. The intent of the law was to prevent one person from holding multiple positions unless no suitable person could be found and to get more participation in the government.

But does she have the right to assume the powers of the Presidency while a run-off election is occuring? I don't think she does, since the office is only vacant if the office holder resigning, judicial action, impeachment, if no citizen ran for election for that office or when a new office is created. None of those apply, so the office is not vacant until the judiciary declares it vacant after 7 days. I think from the time of the last Presidential term until the run-off is complete, there is no one with Presidential powers.

Also, can't the Judiciary still work without the CJ? It could hold emergency hearings and hope they don't split their vote.

If even if we assume the office of president was vacant and that Chieftess had authority to appoint a chief justice the actual appointment was made forty four minutes before she posted a thread asking interested parties to contact her if they wanted to be CJ. This is contrary to section 8 which is (and was) posted in the constitution and CoL thread when all this happened.

Bluntly, the section of law that CT was relying on for her authority to take over the duties of the President were repealed over a month ago. Thus, she doesn't have the authority to even REQUEST for a new CJ. At most, the SoS can only appoint a citizen to the office of President.

It's gone. Kaput. I can't say why the main thread wasn't updated, it looks like the CJ did not request it. That request was made earlier today. If you want to see what the section is, look here and in the main ruleset thread.

In addition, the office IS NOT VACANT. There IS an election still going on. Let the Censor run the election and declare a winner, and THEN we can get complicated about this. We elected him to run the election, let him do it.

-- Ravensfire

just been browsing this thread really because i find the whole law thing pretty boring so has anyone actually voluteered for the posistion which is really the key thing.

BCLG100 said:

just been browsing this thread really because i find the whole law thing pretty boring so has anyone actually voluteered for the posistion which is really the key thing.

Click to expand...

It's quite clear that there are several people interested.

The first step is to allow the Presidential election to finish, and for the Censor to declare a winner of that election. That person will then be able to fill the office of the Chief Justice.

-- Ravensfire

However, there have been amendments that did change the law. That someone who would serve as CJ doesn't know the law disturbs me.

Click to expand...

I generally look up the appropriate parts of the law when needed. It keeps me from growing the attitude that many have that "they know the law" and thats that. The current law is huge and it may take some time to pick it apart if this issue had been resolved in the courts then we would have all had time to make proper arguments instead of needed to come up with quick reply to feeding of the army of do gooders.

ravensfire said:

In addition, the office IS NOT VACANT. There IS an election still going on.
-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

Since we do not have a president I find it difficult to accept the concept that the office is not vacant. Elections were designed to be completed before a term starts and the vacancy clause of the CoL was written so that if we do not have an official in place at the start of a term steps can be taken to fill the position. The possibility of run-off elections not ending before a term started did not seem to occur to our lawmakers. The fact that a certain clause was deleted is not always enough to make an action illegal. It could be argued that the deleted clause was the victim of a reorganization that was aimed at fixing something else. We will need a JR or two to resolve this until the CoL is amended (if it is).